EVENTS

Same sex marriage will make all children orphans!!

The Vatican, shaken to its core by the shocking US elections in which three states voted for legalizing same-sex marriage and no states voted against it, has raced to reiterate its own stupid insistence on the obvious and the wrong.

“In western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union,” said Father Federico Lombardi.

“It is a question of admitting that a husband and a wife are publicly recognized as such, and that children who come into the world can know, and say they have, a father and a mother,” he added.

There you go – an imbecilic combination of obvious and wrong which add up to nothing.

Dude, the fact that two women can marry doesn’t somehow mean that a wife and a husband are not publicly recognized as such. I know this. I know this for a fact. Apparently you don’t, because the Vatican is as isolated as if it were on Mars before the arrival of any Rovers, so I will assure you, from my own knowledge: wives and husbands are still publicly recognized as such. It happens all the time. I mean, granted, there aren’t constant shouts about it wherever they go – but then that was true before, too.

In other words, nothing has changed. Nothing has changed for straight couples. They haven’t been made Uncouples overnight.

Also, children can and do still know, and still say they have, a mother and a father. Nothing has changed there either. Not a thing. No children are looking around in shock and wondering why they can no longer say they have a mother and a father. No children are staring at their parents in amazement and saying “why aren’t you my mother and father any more?!!”

Some children will say that they have two mothers or two fathers instead, so what?
There are tons of children who can’t say they have a mother and a father for very different reasons. Make sure less children end up in orphanages (by not campaigning against contraception and abortion, for example) and for those that do, that they can find new parents more easily (by not campaigning against same sex couples adopting).

I still don’t get how this is still an issue. There are now 11 countries with same sex marriage laws on the books and it hasn’t destroyed them. The Vatican needs to just get over the fact that these laws are coming to the western world and it isn’t going to change much of anything for children parents or families.

Reporting from a country which has had gay marriage for 7 years now. Moms and dads are still recognized as such.

By the way, having two moms or two dads isn’t new. It’s been like that since forever. Those parents simply were not able to marry, that’s all, and one of them didn’t legally count as a parent. What our law did is to legally acknowledge the existence of such relationships and households for what they are – not to create a new reality out of the blue.

A question for those who say, “I really don’t get this,” or who say, “but marriage hasn’t been destroyed. . see country X”: Do you really have that question or are you being rhetorical?

The reason I ask is because I’d be really puzzled if anyone thought the Vatican’s articulated rationales were honest, or that by debunking them we could get them to change their mind. No one here really believes that, do you?

It’s been obvious forever that this is all about preserving privileged legal and social status. They are right that they’re losing something: They’re losing that privileged status and the deference it formerly carried because that is, in fact, being diluted by queers being able to marry. Those of us on the the morally right side know that this is actually a positive step toward full enfranchisement and that no group should have privileged legal status over another. But they don’t see it that way.

For them it is a zero-sum game. I guess what I’m saying is, please tell me you’re not honestly baffled and you don’t honestly think you can change minds by arguing against a rationale they don’t really hold. If you you do think that I’m concerned you’re being ineffective because you’re not grappling with the real problem.

The real problem is they think they’re special and they’re gonna stay special at queer expense. This has to be articulated clearly and without even rhetorical deference to their bullshit ’empirical’ distractions.

Josh – Yeh. I know. I was just treating the dopy rationalization as genuine the better to mock it.

I think we’re all being rhetorical. I mean obviously the Vatican bots don’t really think children can’t figure out who their parents are…But they may think that their sub-bots will believe it because they say it. So we mock it.

Well, I don’t really believe that Vatican is worried about the children, obviously. But I can’t help but point out the hypocrisy of them pretending to worry about the children, while their policies are actually harming them.

And of course we don’t think we’re going to change the Vatican’s mind. What a hilarious idea! As if they would be where they are if they knew how to change their minds! Hahahahaha

No but that’s not a reason not to point out what bullshit their bullshit is. The more that gets out into the discourse, the more chances there are for lay Catholics to be exposed to the anti-bullshittery.

So to the extent that anyone’s seriously arguing, I think it’s with people who believe clerics’ made-up reasons for opposing marriage equality.

I’m not so sure Lombardi doesn’t really believe that, in the sense that humans can convince themselves of the most absurd shit when sufficiently motivated. The motivation is, of course, more or less what Josh suggests, and no, debunking it won’t convince Lombardi his ilk. But some of his audience might be open to having the absurdity sharply delineated.

Lombardi’s fallacy — and this runs all through Christian, particularly Catholic, thought — is to view marriage as a sort Platonic Form created in the mind of God, the job of earthly law and custom being to instantiate that abstraction. So when pesky mortal voters and politicians go mucking about with the law this way it sort of decouples the secular from the sacred, and suddenly “husband”, “wife”, “Mummy and Daddy”, etc. no longer mean what they’re supposed to mean. And the foundations of reality tremble, cats start living with dogs…..

….which is, of course, bullshit and should be loudly pointed out as such. Real, actual, living couples have little trouble knowing who their respective partners are, and what that relationship means in emotional, social, financial, sexual and legal terms, and children (usually, when things are going well) have little trouble knowing who to turn to when they fall down and scrape their knees. And we should shout from the rooftops that this — the concrete, living experience of real humans — is what matters, is what should have moral priority; not the abstractions of theologians and the dead threats of priests.

So to the extent that anyone’s seriously arguing, I think it’s with people who believe clerics’ made-up reasons for opposing marriage equality.

Yeah. I mean, pointing to the countries where marriage equality exists might encourage Catholics who are waffling about the issue to accept the change in their own communities. It’s not like we believe that we need to “prove” marriage equality won’t destroy the world and lead us all into eternity of suffering.

Thanks for all the answers folks. My concern (and it needn’t be yours, I know) is to keep hammering home the point that human rights and dignity matter for their own sake. Even if that means “marriage changes.” Even if. I want people to be forced to candidly confront what they’re really saying. For them to be so confronted they need to be put on the spot and asked whether they truly care about the suffering of others, or only in sofaras their own comfortable positions are protected.

My concern (and it needn’t be yours, I know) is to keep hammering home the point that human rights and dignity matter for their own sake.
…
For them to be so confronted they need to be put on the spot and asked whether they truly care about the suffering of others, or only in sofaras their own comfortable positions are protected.

A valid concern, and probably not repeated often enough. Will try to acknowledge it more often in these discussions.

How do you know what children are walking around doing and saying and thinking?

Last time I checked my daughters elementary school has zero boys in any extra curricular activities such as art, music, student counsel, or winter crafts. Zero. It’s entirely girls.

I’m not sure if this is directory relevant to your rant. However you shouldn’t run around proclaiming you know what children think and feel becsuse you haven’t the slightest clue. Either do I for that matter. I just try to observe and come to my own conclusions from my observations.

Cashdoller is a wandering, whiny misogynist who dreams of a feminist-dominated state that privileges girls, and claims deadbeat dads face incredibly stark penalties in our culture, as a deadbeat dad himself.

Ok. I’m wrong. When I say no children are looking around in shock and wondering why they can no longer say they have a mother and a father, I’m wrong. When I say no children are staring at their parents in amazement and saying “why aren’t you my mother and father any more?!!”, I’m wrong. So some children are looking around in shock and wondering why they can no longer say they have a mother and a father. Some children are staring at their parents in amazement and saying “why aren’t you my mother and father any more?!!”. Since the election. Is that right, Cashdoller? Children are responding to the votes in Maine, Maryland and Washington by concluding that they have no parents, and that those two adults in the house with them are not their parents? Is that what you’re saying?

Josh, Official SpokesGay says:
November 12, 2012 at 2:08 pm
…..I’d be really puzzled if anyone thought the Vatican’s articulated rationales were honest…. No one here really believes that, do you?

Of course not. One more cynical than I (there has to be one somewhere) might be tempted to suggest that the good Father Lombardi’s thought processes were ore on the lines of “Gay marriage = equal rights for gays = gays adopting = less orphans = less orphans in Catholic institutions = less oportunity for wayward priests to relieve their ‘frustrations’ (in a strictly non-gay way, of course) = more temptation for said priests to turn to each other = gay priests”.
And there you have it. Because of you selfish gays demanding equal rights, priests will be forced to turn gay. Feel ashamed of yourselves yet?

Those of us on the the morally right side know that this is actually a positive step toward full enfranchisement and that no group should have privileged legal status over another. But they don’t see it that way.

Thanks for pointing this out. Concepts such as “equal rights” aren’t universally seen as positive, and “privileged legal recognition for some groups” is not regarded as unfair by everyone.

For them it is a zero-sum game. […]
The real problem is they think they’re special and they’re gonna stay special at queer expense.

Does it necessarily have to be a scenario of taking more than one’s share of a limited resource (marriage? legal recognition?) at the expense of a minority group? Or is it simply the idea that a legally recognised marriage is some kind of special reward that only obedient god-fearing people who breed like rabbits deserve, and not all the evil yucky perverts? Note how the Catholic church condemned and worked to maintain laws against every deviation from their ideal of marriage, from divorce to contraception and pre-marital sex, or even just married women’s recognition as individuals instead of only as their husbands’ property.

Ysanne, what I’m saying is that theysee it as a zero-sum game. Yes, if others have that special, recognized status, then their own special recognized status isn’t so special. And they’re right about that. To the degree that they prize the exclusionary aspect of hetero-only marriage, they are losing that distinctive “brand.” It’s not about any articulated theological justification, or even about those icky gays. It’s base, pathologically selfish tribal privilege.

Regardless, people—if they want to be ethical, moral people—have to be willing to give up the prestige they’ve accrued from artificial scarcity when other people’s basic dignity is the cost otherwise. I want them to have to stand up in public and say, “I don’t care.” If they’re gonna play this game they need to own it and all the social consequences that come with that. No more hiding depravedly petty bitterness behind rationalizations.

Does it necessarily have to be a scenario of taking more than one’s share of a limited resource (marriage? legal recognition?) at the expense of a minority group? Or is it simply the idea that a legally recognised marriage is some kind of special reward that only obedient god-fearing people who breed like rabbits deserve, and not all the evil yucky perverts

These are just two ways of describing the same thing. No, of course they don’t consciously see it as clinging to a portion of a scarce resource, but that’s exactly what it is. Your second argument is just a subset of the first, not something different.

Shorter: I got used to having mine, and having mine means being better than you.

A bunch of men wearing dresses are upset because gays may be treated as “normal” people. The Catholic bishops spend more time thinking about gay sex than most gays do.

We must all be getting very tired of saying it by now, but no one’s going to force anyone into a gay marriage, nor is anyone going to stop heterosexuals getting married, even in churches if they want. So this is categorically not an attack on marriage. Nor can the church–any church–claim historical precedent gives them a monopoly on marriage.

It’s interesting. That probably wasn’t a thing until teh gayz started talking about it. Then as soon as they did, it was all, “No, that’s ours, and you can’t have it.”

Although…slaves were often not allowed to marry, too, right? Am I remembering that correctly? It was conceptualized as a fancy, special, “white” thing and slaves couldn’t have it? Then they were demonized for slutting around unmarried.

They can still have their perfect ideal marriage for special people (just as they can prevent those special marriages from ending in divorce), they can still claim to be superior and prestigious–and they can even throw in a martyr’s crown or two. The thing they’re losing is the power to make everyone, including secular governments and their own membership, conform to their will. So yeah, they really do have something to weep and gnash their teeth over. And it’s about time.

Can we please stop characterising the priesthood this way? It implies that there is something humiliating about wearing dresses, and doubly so for men. Not to mention that it’s just ignorant. Oh, and irrelevant.

I’m fairly convinced that almost nobody making this sort of argument believes it. I think they know it makes no sense and they don’t care. The thing is to have an argument – not necessarily a good or correct argument – then conspiring to pretend it’s true. I’m not even sure they’re trying to convince anyone, not even themselves. Coherence and maintaining influence is obviously more important to organisations like the Catholic church than, say, telling the truth or respecting people’s rights.

Time for another generation, perhaps? Think I’m worn out or something. The only idea I can come up with is, “Bah, enough. Demolish the Vatican and auction the pieces.”
I don’t really feel like talking about it anymore. I want them crushed them under heel.

Gotta love the incredibly selfish sense of religious privilege of the Catholics, who will be the first to tell you that their justification is based on scripture, yet have no compunction to restrict their religious views to their own denomination, like anyone with a shred of tolerance would display. Much like Muslima haircutters.

Here is an idea: since what we are really talking about when we talk about marriage equality is the codification of religious biases into secular law, would it not be an interesting development if someone was to start a bona fide church whose founding by-laws specifically maintained that their rites of matrimony would apply regardless of the participant’s gender, as ordained by God?

Any so-called ‘marriage protection’ legislation would then be a direct violation of their religious freedoms, and could be adjudicated as such. I would love to see the Catholic church hoisted by their own petard on that one.

Maybe a national Atheist organization should set up such a church, ostensibly for religious or community or charitable services, but with obvious political utility. Let’s get into the game.

Route- your namely spell checks to “route”. Oh the irony there. And in response to what you said… Eh? I’m speechless. Ill just keep walking I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

In response to the actual blog and most of the people commenting here, you seem just as bad as the other side. I don’t see how you mocking their beliefs is any better than them trying to shame yours. Your behavior is just as atrocious.

For the record, I am for gay marriage. However I am not gay so it doesn’t really apply to my life. Hence I don’t have a very strong opinion about it, don’t reslly care at all. I was cheering for the gays up until about a year ago. I think prop 8 was turned down in ncalifornia and the entire movement (like this blogs comments) got angry and sometimes hateful. But worst of all it became part of the politically correct culture. Meaning it became the norm to shame anyone else who was NOT for gay marriage, and not the other way around. We had a cultural shift.

And it was at that point that I began to not support the movement anymore. But rather just look at it from an outsiders perspective. This blogs is case in point. People like rubbe and others name calling and talking about those “other” people like they are so entirely off base and shame them. Has it ever occured to you there might be some validity in something that is thousands of year old tradition? I dont think its occured to anyone on either side that there might have to take some compromise.

But nah fuck that shit. Lets stay mad and whine about it on a blog and let a mob of angry commenters cheer us on. Yay.

I don’t see how you mocking their beliefs is any better than them trying to shame yours.

They are not mocking our “beliefs”, they are presenting lies as facts that are used to curtail human rights. You know, rights that you or I take for granted.
Spreading lies and bullshit that are used to harm people is hardly the same as mocking someone. Rutee is doing the mocking. Vatican is doing the evil. Quite a difference.

Your behavior is just as atrocious.

False equivalence to the n-th degree.

Meaning it became the norm to shame anyone else who was NOT for gay marriage, and not the other way around. We had a cultural shift.

I wish.
But it certainly did turn things for the better (at least) a bit, in US.

So… Yay! *confetti*
*confetti*

Mock the bigots!

Er, not the reaction you approve off?

And it was at that point that I began to not support the movement anymore.

I thought you supported gay rights.

SO, among other things, you are also a liar.

I am so surprised.

Has it ever occured to you there might be some validity in something that is thousands of year old tradition?

It did.
I got better.

Seriously, women being sold to men like chattel used to be a long standing tradition.

Non-white people being worth only part of a real person used to be a tradition.

Traditions aren’t necessarily good. They are just things that have been done for a long time. Some good, some bad, some of the kind that should be stopped right fucking now and forever be regarded as a shameful mark on our history.

I dont think its occured to anyone on either side that there might have to take some compromise.

You don’t make compromises on human rights.

That’s kind of basic, you know. Equal rights for all people are not something you can compromise on, you douchebag.

Also, read Josh’s first comment because it seems to have flown right over your head. Now I see why he had to make that emphasis. There are always idiots like yourself how can’t grasp the concept of equality.

Has it ever occured to you there might be some validity in something that is thousands of year old tradition? I dont think its occured to anyone on either side that there might have to take some compromise.

Marriage “traditionally” was not always between a man and a woman. so we can safely discard this argument as irrelevant.

Which compromise would you like? Civil unions perhaps? Besides the fact that they fight tooth and nail against those as well, civil unions are not equal to marriage legally. Literally thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations would need their wording altered. Each law requiring a vote. Regulations referring to marriage would technically be easier to change in practice would take forever. Civil unions are a waste of time and money especially for such a non issue, everyone should just have equal rights.

Maybe, but people who can actually write for a damn don’t rely on their spellcheckers for every little thing.

Eh? I’m speechless.

Yet you keep jabbering on. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

. Ill just keep walking I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

Oh please. You whined on about it already, in this very thread. You do realize this is the internet, stupid shit you say remains for view for the rest of us.

you seem just as bad as the other side.

You caught me, I’ve been persecuting gays in my spare time, for funsies, by writing laws that prevent gay people from exercising their rights.

Because that is the only way to be ‘just as bad’ as the Catholic Church. Enforcing bigotry*.

I don’t see how you mocking their beliefs is any better than them trying to shame yours.

Well, add it to the ever-growing list of shit you don’t understand.

They’re spewing bigotry. Their beliefs should be mocked, because they are harmful and stupid. Not only will I stop mocking them when they stop actively harming people, but I am not really infringing on their rights in a substantive way. It is not even a tiny bit like anti-gay (or any other sort of) bigotry.

For the record, I am for gay marriage.

No, you’re not, not if you start booing queers for being angry at the bullshit we face.

Meaning it became the norm to shame anyone else who was NOT for gay marriage, and not the other way around. We had a cultural shift.

Not that this is really true, but oh fucking no. Not that. Like every other fool misogynist, you don’t get that shame isn’t a universal bad; shaming people for doing something bad, like I don’t know, BEING A FUCKING BIGOT is just fine. You should feel some shame for your stupidity. You’ve made gay rights contingent on your own comfort. You are an asshole of the highest caliber; and no, a little shame has no fucking comparison.

Has it ever occured to you there might be some validity in something that is thousands of year old tradition?

1: Not really, but I know a thing or two about the formation and maintenance of tradition. Tradition isn’t an automatic wrong, but many cultural taboos are entirely groundless and carry on through sheer inertia. Anti-gay bigotry is just one.

2: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh god, you are a fucking fool. Modern western marriage isn’t even 200 years old, let alone ‘thousands’. And not every culture has been nearly as anti-gay as our current one.

3: If tradition is so fucking important to you, why do you live a modern lifestyle, exactly? It’s not tradition. Given your fool ideas of the past, maybe you should be tending crops in some tiny backwater.

I dont think its occured to anyone on either side that there might have to take some compromise.

No. There is no room to compromise on my rights. You are a fucking piece of shit to even suggest that this is valid morally.** My rights are not to be trampled because some fool is squeamish or thinks my marrying my fiancee somehow affects him substantively.

*Well, I could kill thousands of poor, brown, or black people, rape children, or similar. It is the Catholic Church we’re talking about.

**And no, I’m not talking about people who suggest it solely on the basis of its tactical value, like with civil unions. This is about “WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD COMPROMISE BECAUSE THATS WHAT YOU ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DO” asshattery like the fool is spouting.

Someone should remind the Vatican that many children being raised by straight parents already have two mommies and/or two daddies–it’s called step-parenting. How convenient for them to forget about that heterosexual tradition in order to attack gay parents.

Now and then someone tells me that the pro-equality side is getting ‘too militant’ as in they can’t accept that a person can be against gay marriage and *might still be a good person.*

However, when you support second-class citizenship for a group of people, you can’t be a good person, and you can’t expect people who think human rights matter to respect you. It may be helpful in a realpolitik sense to be polite towards people like this, but do we owe polite consideration to people who think slavery is okay? That some races are inferior to others? That women should have no legal rights? Of course we don’t, so it shouldn’t be any different for gay rights. We don’t politely disagree with proponents of bigotry, we call them out on it.

I see my last two comments have unaccountably vanished. Perhaps they were judged to be mere trollery. Oh well. Here’s an honest question, submitted in the (probably vain) hope that it will be permitted to stand. I’ve never had a convincing answer yet from an atheist.

Josh, Official SpokesGay:

human rights and dignity

people’s basic dignity

Beatrice:

human rights. You know, rights that you or I take for granted.

You don’t make compromises on human rights. That’s kind of basic, you know. Equal rights for all people are not something you can compromise on

Rutee Katreya:

There is no room to compromise on my rights. You are a fucking piece of shit to even suggest that this is valid morally.

In all seriousness, I have to ask: where do these human rights and dignity come from? It’s safe to say folks here don’t believe “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”! So what does that leave? Are human rights and dignity somehow innate in Nature? Nature herself gives us precious little reason to think so (“Brought before the tribunal of ethics, the cosmos might well seem to stand condemned” – Thomas Huxley). Besides, we all know we can’t derive an Ought from an Is. Maybe they were granted to humans by humans? But in that case they are provisional, entirely dependent on human will. (What the state giveth, the state taketh away.) And of course humans are wholly part of nature anyway, according to the atheist, so their actions constitute an Is from which we can derive no Ought. Professor Dawkins is at pains to insist on this point because he wants to be able to deflect the hoary challenge “If we’re just animals, why shouldn’t we behave like animals?”. But he fails to see that it cuts both ways. If the Selfish Gene does not imply an ethical imperative to behave selfishly, neither do our nobler instincts imply an ethical imperative to behave nobly. “But humans have a natural empathy for their fellow humans!” Perhaps they do, sometimes, but if this empathy is natural (and what else could it be for an atheist?) it is part of the physical Is and as such cannot provide a basis for the metaphysical Ought of ethical imperatives. Why ought we follow our ethical impulses rather than our aggressive instincts?

No one’s interested in your Catholic apologetics, Gray. We’re quite fine being committed to human rights without a commitment to your god, and it’s fine that that irks you. We have better things to do.

I’m not engaging in apologetics, Catholic or otherwise. I’m curious as to how you defend your beliefs.

We’re quite fine being committed to human rights without a commitment to your god

I don’t doubt your commitment. I just wonder how you justify it, logically or scientifically. Surely it’s not just based on strong emotion or some kind of ineffable gnostic insight?

and it’s fine that that irks you.

It doesn’t irk me, it puzzles me. Seriously.

We have better things to do.

In other words: Don’t think – just do. Credere, obbedire, combattere! It’s so pure. Bigotry is bigotry. Bigotry is rebellion against human rights and egalitarianism. Human rights and egalitarianism teach us how to live a righteous life …

Oh madogoddess, what a fucking piece of shit you are. The notions of human rights are indeed constructed by people, and they will be defended and fought for by people.

And of course humans are wholly part of nature anyway, according to the atheist, so their actions constitute an Is from which we can derive no Ought

Are you on a diet? Because that’s a lot of word salad you just served yourself there. Fucking fool? How can I derive the notion that people Ought to be treated equally from the Is that is unequal, bigotted society? Oh right, you’re just spewing words to try to make catholicism look better, I forgot.

No, the ethical imperative doesn’t just stem from our ‘nobler instincts’, you pretentious, bigotted blowhard. Stop trying to use the fight for Gay Rights as a philosophical stepping stone for your bigotted church. The ethical imperatives spring from the fact that an equal society is a better one to live in for the overwhelming majority of people.

Oh is he, Aratina? Wasn’t planning on responding any further but that’s just more incentive. Amazing that he thinks anyone is concerned about justifying their positions to him. Guess he’ll have to remain puzzled.

jonathangray:
I’ll leave the argument over moral realism vs. non-realism to those better versed than I in philosophy, and just ask: What’s your evidence that 1) God exists and 2) cares about the things you care about? Because I say that, at *best*, your position has no more epistemic warrant than ours does — and I furthermore bet that a humanist ethic, however justified, is likely to improve the welfare and happiness of humans more than one based on pronouncements of an alleged god, as channeled by his priests.

Oh, and the comic? All the gentle persuasion and analytical rigor of a Chick tract, but with worse artwork.

How can I derive the notion that people Ought to be treated equally from the Is that is unequal, bigotted society?

You can’t, unless there’s a universal objective absolute morality that tells us that equality is good and inequality is bad. Such a morality can’t be based on your personal feelings of revulsion at an unequal society – because why should your feelings of revulsion outrank the equally strong feelings of approval others might feel? An objective morality must enable us to judge between different emotional responses, therefore cannot be based on any of them.

The ethical imperatives spring from the fact that an equal society is a better one to live in for the overwhelming majority of people.

Can you provide scientific evidence or logical proofs that the primary ethical imperative is in fact to provide a better life for the majority of people? And can you provide scientific evidence or logical proofs that what you regard as “better” is objectively better? If not, your claims can only be based on emotion or divine revelation. Which is it?

Eamon Knight:

What’s your evidence that 1) God exists

Apart from metaphysical proofs of theism, and a brief mystical experience that I was privileged to have, I personally find the most compelling evidence to be the vicissitudes of the Jewish people throughout history and the trajectory of modern Western society since it apostasised from Christianity. Of course you may not find these at all persuasive and I freely admit my ‘evidence’ cannot remotely be considered scientific evidence; but there are plenty of things which it is rational to accept without scientific support – for example that 2+2=4.

and 2) cares about the things you care about?

It’s the other way round – I try to conform my will to God’s and care about the things He cares about.

Because I say that, at *best*, your position has no more epistemic warrant than ours does

Hardly an inspiring argument for atheism, is it? “Those theists are at least as incoherent as us!”

and I furthermore bet that a humanist ethic, however justified, is likely to improve the welfare and happiness of humans more than one based on pronouncements of an alleged god, as channeled by his priests.

Obviously I disagree, but this is precisely where questions of moral realism vs non-realism inevitably intrude. We need to know in what human welfare truly consists before we can judge what constitutes an improvement to it; and prior to that we need to know that human welfare even matters.

Oh, and the comic? All the gentle persuasion and analytical rigor of a Chick tract, but with worse artwork.

Well it wasn’t really aiming for either, was it? As for the artwork, I think ragefaces are rather good; so is the Chick tract art produced by Fred Carter.

You can’t, unless there’s a universal objective absolute morality that tells us that equality is good and inequality is bad.

You are a fucking moron, trying so very hard to dabble in things you are apparently incapable of understanding. Is/Ought are only problems if you can’t actually describe a relationship, which, as it happens, can be.

Can you provide scientific evidence or logical proofs that the primary ethical imperative is in fact to provide a better life for the majority of people? And can you provide scientific evidence or logical proofs that what you regard as “better” is objectively better? If not, your claims can only be based on emotion or divine revelation. Which is it?

You seriously thought your stupid comic was at all representative of atheists, didn’t you? You’re a fucking idiot.

Yes, as there is no objective tablet to read what is best from, at some point we have to make a judgement call. But you seem to either be relying on emotion being all bad, or thinking I can’t make the decision to pursue equality rationally. I already gave you the logical root that can be followed for equality; it is a better life, on basically every metric anyone would actually use to measure for such things, for the overwhelming majority of people.

The other end of this, is the idea that basing morality on empathy is bad. How do you come to this conclusion, little abscess? Because you certainly didn’t hear it from us.

Can you provide scientific evidence or logical proofs that the primary ethical imperative is in fact to provide a better life for the majority of people?

No, but that won’t stop you from crowing that I couldn’t do what I didn’t say I could do. That little failcomic said more about your position than you realize. But it didn’t say a damn thing about mine, now did it?

Apart from metaphysical proofs of theism

That can only prove God is logically possible, not extant.

I personally find the most compelling evidence to be the vicissitudes of the Jewish people throughout history

In other words, biblical inerrancy. Hint: The Jews don’t really exit myth and enter the historical record until David. Further, Christians can claim a fair bit of credit for the hardships given to the Jewish People without your tripartite god entering into it.

But you are a piece of shit for enjoying their suffering as well!

and the trajectory of modern Western society since it apostasised from Christianity.

A millenia of near-stagnancy, followed by theft of technology, culminating in rapid advances as the west broke more and more from its previous moorings in faith?

Because we know why the west did well. It has less than nothing to do with Christianity and a lot more to do with things like “Require long distance shipping” and “Be looking outward at the right time”. Oh, and theft of natural resources, genocide, etc, but you got to there from the previous
point.

but there are plenty of things which it is rational to accept without scientific support – for example that 2+2=4.

This is actually really simple to observe, and test scientifically. It almost took longer to say that than it did to test. I mean, it’ll never get published, but it’s absurdly easy to test. Math didn’t get invented in a vacuum, you know. People had to test and observe this shit too.

It’s the other way round – I try to conform my will to God’s and care about the things He cares about.

I personally find the most compelling evidence to be the vicissitudes of the Jewish people throughout history.

Um, I’m pretty sure I and most other Jews would just as soon the sufferings of our ancestors (often inflicted, strangely enough, by the Catholic Church or under the influence of Catholic doctrines) NOT be used as support for your religious delusions and justification for bullying gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry.

The cupboards in her kitchen were full of things she did not need.I don’t think you are right.Take me to the airport£¬please.I’m sure we can get you a great good dealHe was efficient in his work.The secret was spread among the crowd.The secret was spread among the crowd.I am a football fan.I could hardly speak.We need more than listening.

It’s the other way round – I try to conform my will to God’s and care about the things He cares about.

So you care what people do in their bedrooms?
You care how people treat their slaves?
You whether or not a soldier who rapes a woman marries her?
Do you care about working on Sundays?
Do you care about consuming shellfish?
What about mixed fibers?
You care about (and encourage) human sacrifice?

Hardly an inspiring argument for atheism, is it? “Those theists are at least as incoherent as us!”

We don’t need an argument anywhere near as much as theists do.
We just need evidence. Proof of the existence of Loki. Or Heracles. Or Yahweh.
Since there is no proof, there is no reason to believe.
Since you assert that God exists, you need to prove that. You can’t. No one has yet. There’s no more evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible than there is/was for the existence of the Greco-Roman Gods.

In response to the actual blog and most of the people commenting here, you seem just as bad as the other side. I don’t see how you mocking their beliefs is any better than them trying to shame yours. Your behavior is just as atrocious.

Why shouldn’t superstitious beliefs be mocked? You really think people should not mock beliefs that are based on imaginary deities?
If a 56 year old man told me he believed in fairies and dragons, I’d likely mock that belief IF he had insufficient proof.
Even more insulting though, is your assertion that “we’re as bad as the other side”. The actions taken by atheists (which are almost all non violent) is nothing compared to the actions taken by theists.
We mock them. Theists have killed us.
We mock them. Theists have worked to prevent us from getting jobs.
We mock them. Theists treat us as equivalent to rapists.
We mock them. Theists prevent us from having custody of our children.

That you would equate mere speech with the vile actions taken by adherents of religion toward non believers disgusts me.

Has it ever occured to you there might be some validity in something that is thousands of year old tradition? I dont think its occured to anyone on either side that there might have to take some compromise.

An appeal to tradition?
Really.
Slavery used to be a tradition. According to your reasoning we should reinstitute it.
The truth of a claim is not determined by how long it has been believed, nor in how many people believe it.

Even assuming it was a valid argument, why should we value that one strain of religion over any other? There are religions that existed long before Christianity. According to your logic, they must all have validity too. So ancient Chinese myths, the gods of Mesopotamian myth, and the gods of ancient Egypt must have something to them too.
Of course trying to figure out which one is the correct belief system is going to be a difficult task for you. There’s no more proof form them than there is for Christianity.

Atheist want evidence.
Theists have yet to produce any.
No compromise can be had.

Okay, my girlfriend insists that I not rely on people’s misconceptions of the medieval era, so I’ll have to amend my previous point in response to “WELL CHRISTIANITY HAS PROVEN ITS AWESOME THROUGH WESTERN DOMINANCE” from “A millenia of Near-stagnancy” to “Lagging behind the rest of the civilized world for a millenia”. I imagine that in a millenia or two, we’ll see scientologists or buddhists or similar say that the dominance of wherever is reigning in a millenia is proof of their gods, and never mind the 500+ years where the Christianity-dominated West reigned, just as Christians claim only now counts, and Muslims claimed only the medieval era counted while they were in it.

Why shouldn’t superstitious beliefs be mocked

Because he has to maintain faux superiority and justify his total lack of action.

In all seriousness, I have to ask: where do these human rights and dignity come from? It’s safe to say folks here don’t believe “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”!

-they come from the same place that the your quote did.

Human rights are commonly understood as “inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.”[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of human rights[3] states, “if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights.” Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day. Indeed, the question of what is meant by a “right” is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

I’m sure you carefully and methodically ruled out any other possibilities to explain this experience AND found proof that it was mystical. How long did this process take? What were some of the other possible explanations for this mystical experience? How did you eliminate the possibility that you briefly became one with Gaia, rather than God?
I can’t imagine that you had this experience and thought “That was amazing. I can’t imagine any other explanation for this. God is responsible.”
Cuz that’s totally not proof. You’re already biased through indoctrination to believe that crap is true.

Is/Ought are only problems if you can’t actually describe a relationship, which, as it happens, can be done

Not if you accept the metaphysical foundations of modern science, which would strip physical reality of all intentionality and reduce it to a deterministic and/or stochastic mechanism.

you seem to either be relying on emotion being all bad

No, I’m saying that if we follow Dawkins’ logic then human emotions provide no ground for ethical imperatives.

or thinking I can’t make the decision to pursue equality rationally. I already gave you the logical root that can be followed for equality; it is a better life, on basically every metric anyone would actually use to measure for such things, for the overwhelming majority of people.

So what is logical & ethical is determined by a majority vote?

The other end of this, is the idea that basing morality on empathy is bad. How do you come to this conclusion, little abscess? Because you certainly didn’t hear it from us.

Well whether or not you accept Dawkins’ is/ought distinction, you cannot base ethics on empathy because empathy is ethically empty – it is merely a capacity to recognise and vicariously experience the emotional state of someone else.

Can you provide scientific evidence or logical proofs that the primary ethical imperative is in fact to provide a better life for the majority of people?

No, but that won’t stop you from crowing that I couldn’t do what I didn’t say I could do. That little failcomic said more about your position than you realize. But it didn’t say a damn thing about mine, now did it?

So you now admit you have nothing to base your ethical system on except emotional impulse. Why then do you hold conservatives and theists to a higher standard than yourself by demanding they produce scientific evidence etc for their claims?

Apart from metaphysical proofs of theism

That can only prove God is logically possible, not extant.

Some would say they prove God is logically necessary.

I personally find the most compelling evidence to be the vicissitudes of the Jewish people throughout history

In other words, biblical inerrancy. Hint: The Jews don’t really exit myth and enter the historical record until David.

Even if that were true, the subsequent history of the Jews would still compel me to believe in their God.

Further, Christians can claim a fair bit of credit for the hardships given to the Jewish People

You’re right, they can – along with ancient pagans, modern pagans, Muslims and atheists. What’s your point? (BTW “vicissitudes” is not synonymous with “hardships”.)

But you are a piece of shit for enjoying their suffering as well!

I don’t recall saying I enjoyed their suffering.

and the trajectory of modern Western society since it apostasised from Christianity.

A millenia of near-stagnancy, followed by theft of technology, culminating in rapid advances as the west broke more and more from its previous moorings in faith?

Medieval Christendom produced an architecture as fine as the Greeks’, poetry to equal Homer and Shakespeare, and elaborations of philosophical logic that weren’t rediscovered until the 20th century. It bequeathed to the Western world institutions such as universities and hospitals, and technological innovations including the mechanical clock and eyeglasses.

but there are plenty of things which it is rational to accept without scientific support – for example that 2+2=4.

This is actually really simple to observe, and test scientifically. It almost took longer to say that than it did to test. I mean, it’ll never get published, but it’s absurdly easy to test. Math didn’t get invented in a vacuum, you know. People had to test and observe this shit too.

No. Just no. We know 2+2=4 with a certainty beyond any scientific hypothesis because it is axiomatically true. We can indeed observe this truth in countless real-world instantiations; and no doubt you’re right that such observations were necessary for us to first formulate this truth; but we do not test it scientifically. There aren’t teams of white-coated boffins armed with calculators and abacuses busily amassing evidence to support “the 2+2=4 theory” or hoping to falsify it by finding an instance when they add up to make 5.

Well it wasn’t really aiming for [gentle persuasion or analytical rigour], was it?

abundantly clear.

I don’t suppose you see the irony of complaining about a lack of “gentle persuasion” (“what a fucking piece of shit you are … fucking fool … pretentious, bigotted blowhard … fucking moron … fucking idiot … little abscess … piece of shit”). Indeed, I was under the impression that complaining about a lack of gentle persuasion marked one out as a tone troll in FTB world.

I’m pretty sure I and most other Jews would just as soon the sufferings of our ancestors (often inflicted, strangely enough, by the Catholic Church or under the influence of Catholic doctrines) NOT be used as support for your religious delusions and justification for bullying gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry.

Religious Jews not infrequently use the sufferings etc of the Jewish people as support for rabbinical Judaism, so I can do the same for Catholicism, which after all claims to be in the direct line of descent from the religion of the ancient Israelites.

I’m sure you carefully and methodically ruled out any other possibilities to explain this experience AND found proof that it was mystical. How long did this process take? What were some of the other possible explanations for this mystical experience?

To be honest, such considerations never once occurred to me at the time. Not very scientific I know …

How did you eliminate the possibility that you briefly became one with Gaia, rather than God?

Who said anything about “becoming one” with anything? There are types of mystical experience.

I can’t imagine that you had this experience and thought “That was amazing. I can’t imagine any other explanation for this. God is responsible.”

Pretty much.

Cuz that’s totally not proof.

No, but it has a degree of evidential force, for me at any rate.

You’re already biased through indoctrination to believe that crap is true.

Except I was an atheist when I had the experience and wasn’t afterwards.

When the alternative to determining ethics are the opinions of an 85 year old celibate who wears a funny hat and thinks a mythical sky pixie talks to him, I’ll go with majority vote. Especially when the 85 year old celibate in the funny hat has distinctly immoral ethical ideas. The majority has voted that his protection of child rapists is not ethical.

Logic has always been determined by majority vote. That’s even accepted by 85 year old celibates wearing funny hats.

Some would say they prove God is logically necessary.

Some people say the most foolish things, especially about mythical sky pixies. Doesn’t mean those things are true.

Even if that were true, the subsequent history of the Jews would still compel me to believe in their God.

What’s so special about some Middle Eastern tribes who spent most of their time being conquered by larger neighbors?

Medieval Christendom produced an architecture as fine as the Greeks’, poetry to equal Homer and Shakespeare, and elaborations of philosophical logic that weren’t rediscovered until the 20th century.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether your mythical sky pixie exists. You do know that cum hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation proves causation) is a logical fallacy, don’t you? Even 85 year old celibates wearing funny hats know that.

There aren’t teams of white-coated boffins armed with calculators and abacuses busily amassing evidence to support “the 2+2=4 theory” or hoping to falsify it by finding an instance when they add up to make 5.

Except I was an atheist when I had the experience and wasn’t afterwards.

Why do theists always say “I used to be an atheist and then I found JESUS!” Do they actually expect us to believe this? Do they think it’s a telling argument for whichever magical sky pixie they’re in love with?

I can believe jonathangray may have been a little lax about going to church every Sunday and perhaps he even was eying different flavors of Jebusism to see which one appealed most, but I have sincere doubts he was a “God does not exist” atheist. Especially since Lying for Jesus is a favorite tactic used by theists when talking to atheists.

I know I should care care in a general sense if people endanger their salvation through their sexual acts. But on a personal level I find it hard to get worked up about what perfect strangers choose to do in their bedrooms (I would feel differently if it was a close friend). I certainly don’t think it’s the business of the state to police what goes on behind closed doors. But it does concern me when immoral sexual acts are socially normalised.

You care how people treat their slaves?

Certainly.

You whether or not a soldier who rapes a woman marries her?

Too many variables to say.

Do you care about working on Sundays?

Certainly.

Do you care about consuming shellfish?

What about mixed fibers?

Why should I care about that? I’m not an ancient Israelite.

You care about (and encourage) human sacrifice?

I care about it insofar as I disapprove of it – as God does.

The actions taken by atheists (which are almost all non violent) is nothing compared to the actions taken by theists.

The millions of Christians who suffered and are suffering under communist regimes might beg to differ.

Rodney Nelson:

So what is logical & ethical is determined by a majority vote?

When the alternative to determining ethics are the opinions of an 85 year old celibate who wears a funny hat

I suspect if he preached secular humanism you would stoutly deny that his opinions were invalidated by his age, celibacy or headgear.

Especially when the 85 year old celibate in the funny hat has distinctly immoral ethical ideas. The majority has voted that his protection of child rapists is not ethical.

I’m not aware that the Pope has been shown to be personally complicit in the protection of predatory ephebophiles; but if you can produce evidence that he was, it would have no bearing on the issue in question. The truths of Christianity, and the infallibility of the Church in teaching those truths, don’t require churchmen to be morally impeccable. There is some circumstantial evidence that high-ranking members of the UK Government have been involved in organised paedophilia – if true, would that invalidate parliamentary democracy?

Logic has always been determined by majority vote. That’s even accepted by 85 year old celibates wearing funny hats.

It hasn’t and isn’t.

What’s so special about some Middle Eastern tribes who spent most of their time being conquered by larger neighbors?

Yeah, the Jews are just like everybody else.

Medieval Christendom produced an architecture as fine as the Greeks’, poetry to equal Homer and Shakespeare, and elaborations of philosophical logic that weren’t rediscovered until the 20th century.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether your mythical sky pixie exists. You do know that cum hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation proves causation) is a logical fallacy, don’t you?

I didn’t say the level of civilisation during the High Middle Ages in itself constituted a proof of God.

The boffins’ names were Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. Principia Mathematica has a proof that 1+1=2. The same proof can be used to show 2+2=4.

I haven’t read the Principia Mathematica but I believe these demonstrations would have been logical proofs, which are not the same thing as evidence acquired through the experimental methods of science.

I can believe jonathangray may have been a little lax about going to church every Sunday and perhaps he even was eying different flavors of Jebusism to see which one appealed most, but I have sincere doubts he was a “God does not exist” atheist.

Doubt all you want, that’s what I was. I did have some exposure to religion in my childhood – my father would take me along to an annual Passover seder at a relative’s house, but he was an easygoing fellow who made no attempt to indoctrinate me. In my youthful arrogance & ignorance, I found the religious content of the seder tedious, incomprehensible or repellant. As for Roman Catholicism, my exposure was limited to a BBC television adaptation of Dracula. By my 20s I was convinced religious belief was a crutch for the weak and a weapon of the puritanical.

I’m not aware that the Pope has been shown to be personally complicit in the protection of predatory ephebophiles; but if you can produce evidence that he was, it would have no bearing on the issue in question.

Back when he was Chief Inquisitor, or Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith if you prefer, your favorite 85 year old celibate in a funny hat sent a letter to every bishop threatening them with excommunication if they turned over child raping clergy to the civil authorities. Instead, the bishops would send the child rapists to another parish or another bishopric or even another country so the child rapists had fresh meat to satisfy their urges. That letter has never been rescinded.

It does have bearing because the head of your church, the 85 year old celibate in the funny hat, has been acting in a completely unethical, immoral manner. So that shoots down your argument that the 85 year old celibate is the fount of ethics and morality.

The truths of Christianity, and the infallibility of the Church in teaching those truths, don’t require churchmen to be morally impeccable.

If a magic sky pixie was really talking to the 85 year old celibate, then the guy in the funny hat might not be taking immoral, unethical positions. When the Church is taking an immoral position while pretending to be the moral authority on Earth, then its “truths” are in considerable doubt. Hypocrisy is neither moral nor ethical.

However I’m glad you recognize the whole bunch of old celibates with funny hats who run your cult are not “morally impeccable.” For that matter, we both know they’re extremely morally peccable, since their support for child rapists is hardly their only moral failing.

Logic has always been determined by majority vote. That’s even accepted by 85 year old celibates wearing funny hats.

It hasn’t and isn’t.

“Nah-uh” is not a refuation. Logic has always been what the majority of people say it is. If you disagree with the majority opinion, then nice men in white coats tend to take you away to a place where you can’t hurt yourself or others.

I haven’t read the Principia Mathematica but I believe these demonstrations would have been logical proofs, which are not the same thing as evidence acquired through the experimental methods of science.

As you’re aware, mathematics isn’t science. Or at least I hope you’re aware of it. Could it be you’re so god-soaked you don’t understand the difference between science and math? I suppose that’s possible. Or possibly you’re just too ignorant to know the difference.

By my 20s I was convinced religious belief was a crutch for the weak and a weapon of the puritanical.

What turned you away from this obvious truth? Did you suffer a stroke or other mental injury to turn to delusions? Or was there some crushing emotional affliction that caused you to pursue lies and illusions? I cannot understand why a supposedly rational, apparently intelligent person would turn his back on reality and replace it with myths and fantasies. No, I am not being facetious. I honestly do not understand why someone would give up rationality in favor of literally a fool’s paradise. And I particularly do not understand why, out of all the flavors of Jesusism there are, you would choose Catholicism, a cult which makes its hatred of humanity plain for everyone to see.

Not if you accept the metaphysical foundations of modern science, which would strip physical reality of all intentionality and reduce it to a deterministic and/or stochastic mechanism.

You are a dumbass. Neither part of this is even a tiny bit related to either the is/ought fallacy, or the is/ought problem. Put down the Atheists Annotated babby’s first reader your bishop gave you.

No, I’m saying that if we follow Dawkins’ logic then human emotions provide no ground for ethical imperatives.

I care so deeply about the opinions of stupid white men, believe you me.

So what is logical & ethical is determined by a majority vote?

…You don’t really understand what logic is, do you?

It’s not about majority vote. If you accept the premises behind it, equality follows logically from self-interest. Majority opinion has nothing to do with it, although the overwhelming majority of humans stand to gain from following this logic.

You’re right, they can – along with ancient pagans, modern pagans, Muslims and atheists. What’s your point? (BTW “vicissitudes” is not synonymous with “hardships”.)

Okay, first off, muslims didn’t start until *well after* Christians had that market locked down, and while there are at least a few antisemitic atheists, jews haven’t really had that many chances to suffer under what few atheist leaders have been out there.

Second, my point was just beyond your grasp, apparently, as it was a clause later; the tripartite god can not claim credit for this shit, as humans did it just fine without his/its help.

I don’t recall saying I enjoyed their suffering.

You might want to wipe the smirk off your face as you run your premature victory laps, if you want to say that and have us believe it.

Medieval Christendom produced an architecture as fine as the Greeks’,

The Greeks weren’t really hot shit, even compared to the romans, who’s methods they eventually lost (Although to be fair, they could hardly practice it on the scale of the Romans), and they were outclassed within their own era by *direct neighbors*, who had the infrastructure and the governments in place to actually build beautiful things on a wider scale, as well as maintain and expand a far superior infrastructure.

poetry to equal Homer and Shakespeare, and elaborations of philosophical logic that weren’t rediscovered until the 20th century

Poetry might be plausible, but given how badly y ou’ve bungled every other point, I’m not going to believe you on logic just because you say so.

It bequeathed to the Western world institutions such as universities and hospitals, and technological innovations including the mechanical clock and eyeglasses.

…yeah, you’re a complete dumbass, aren’t you? The ‘innovations’ were made using advances that were, by necessity, taken from their neighbors, and there’s good evidence Christians didn’t make them first to begin with, but white people do sure love to toot their own horns.

The institutions were *far* behind their counterparts elsewhere; China had functioning education throughout much of its landscape before Rome divided, and Universities of actual use arose in the late medieval period; these same universities were less effective at non-religious education than madrasas throughout Iberia, the Italian islands, Egypt, and Arabia. For that matter, the Ottomans had a functioning civil service education bureau available well before the European powers. As to ‘hospitals’, you’re aware that while they were talking humours, their jewish and islamic neighbours were laying out the basic foundations of medical science, right? Not that the latter were exactly entirely correct, but they were several steps ahead of Europe.

For fucks’ sake, if you were even the littlest bit honest, you’d at least try to use the Byzantines, because they actually had some stuff going for them! But they were Orthodox, and you’re trying really hard to pretend this is actually a feather in the cap of Catholicism. And all of this isn’t really attributable to the religion, at any rate; Europe sucked, but it didn’t suck because of Catholicism, just as catholicism (or any other Christian flavor you wisht o proffer) isn’t really responsible for its rise later.

There aren’t teams of white-coated boffins armed with calculators and abacuses busily amassing evidence to support “the 2+2=4 theory” or hoping to falsify it by finding an instance when they add up to make 5.

That’s because it’s insanely easy. You can gather the evidence the same way many children are taught how to count and do addition. It’s not my fault if a small child can outwit you.

Math ultimately also has to meet some application, where if it were wrong, it would show strains elsewhere in the real world.

I don’t suppose you see the irony of complaining about a lack of “gentle persuasion

I’m not holding myself up as the shining pillar of all that’s good and holy, and at any rate, someone else pointed out that it isn’t exactly ‘gentle persuasion’.

All of which in turn suggests a sad lack of analytical rigour.

Okay, first off, the term you’re searching for is ‘Intellectual Honesty’, not ‘analytical rigour’. Second, the problem is criticizing tone to the exclusion of content, but I don’t expect a bloviating twit to understand that.

Religious Jews not infrequently use the sufferings etc of the Jewish people as support for rabbinical Judaism, so I can do the same for Catholicism, which after all claims to be in the direct line of descent from the religion of the ancient Israelites

…You mean they use their own hardship for their religion? Ya don’t say. Look asshole, I don’t think you understand why you don’t have dibs; because it ain’t yours, fool.

I didn’t say the level of civilisation during the High Middle Ages in itself constituted a proof of God.

No, you claimed that the west’s dominance, in toto, proved it, which is no less a correlation proves causation fallacy. What I did was point out that you are full of *shit*, because Europe spent a solid millenia behind its neighbors, and in an inferior position to most of the globe. *Africa* had more impressive empires for an extended period. In a few hundred years, when the West is getting its ass kicked by Asia (I suspect), is that going to start proving the dominance of Hinduism or whatever? Mind that Hindus and Buddhists had some pretty fucking amazing empires in huge parts oft he globe for centuries before then too.

I’m not actually sure whether or not I should say that europe’s time lagging was longer than a millenia or not. Modern history classes like to pretend the Romans were the unadulterated shit, but there were plenty of strong empires throughout the world, who’s influence reached as far or farther from their capitol.

I’m not aware that the Pope has been shown to be personally complicit in the protection of predatory ephebophiles

Okay, first off, no, the majority of those preyed on were indeed children; stop trying to minimize this shit. Second, if you weren’t aware of your motherfucking pope’s actions, it’s because you’re a piece of ignorant shit who avoids everything that casts an aspersion on mother church.

The millions of Christians who suffered and are suffering under communist regimes might beg to differ.

Case in point. China lets Christians run free, provided they don’t preach against the regime in China; which basically none do, because the churches set up by white people don’t really give a shit. Unless you’re Falun Gong, you’ve got nothing to worry about as a Christian in China, and Falun Gong kinda contradicts Christianity in a major way (I’m sure there’s at least a few Christian Falun Gong). North Korea deifies Kim Jeung Il’s family, so that’s out, and I’m not familiar with anyone but white christians claiming there’s problems with them in any other communist country (try claiming catholics are oppressed in Venezuela, I could use a good laugh).

Once again, you have to make shit up for the oppression Christians suffer under to be as bad. It exists, but it’s primarily in Africa, where Christians are just as terrible to their surrounding neighbors, because again, it’s not really about the religion, religion is just yet another thing seperating two groups; two groups who already really fucking hated each other.

I suspect if he preached secular humanism you would stoutly deny that his opinions were invalidated by his age, celibacy or headgear.

Dunno about him, but I sure as hell will. There’s plenty of stupid white dudes who claim to stand for secular humanism.

Doubt all you want

‘kay, because that’s what we’re going to keep doing with a proven bullshitter.

Too many variables to say.

You are a piece of shit, on so many levels. Human fucking garbage.

Why should I care about that? I’m not an ancient Israelite.

I’m sure a practicing Christian like yourself is as aware as I am that the gospels have contradicting opinions on the old vs. the new laws.

Yeah, the Jews are just like everybody else.

And you reconcile this with

I personally find the most compelling evidence to be the vicissitudes of the Jewish people

how?

fyi: vicissitudes connotes generally bad things.

As you’re aware, mathematics isn’t science. Or at least I hope you’re aware of it. Could it be you’re so god-soaked you don’t understand the difference between science and math? I suppose that’s possible. Or possibly you’re just too ignorant to know the difference.

FTR, since I know he’s going to try to pawn this off on me, I am aware, I’m just also aware that Math *does* have external realities it has to match up to. It doesn’t prove itself via the scientific method, but empirical reality shapes it just the same, at least at a grand scale.

I’m sure you carefully and methodically ruled out any other possibilities to explain this experience AND found proof that it was mystical. How long did this process take? What were some of the other possible explanations for this mystical experience?

To be honest, such considerations never once occurred to me at the time. Not very scientific I know …

Such considerations should be of paramount importance. If you’re at all concerned with determining the truth. It seems like you’re happy to settle on whatever suits your fancy. Great way to figure out a spiritual experience. If someone tells you they were transported to an alien vessel and experimented upon overnight and returned with an alien tracking device are you just going to take their word for it? If not, then you shouldn’t just assume that your “spiritual experience” was actually spiritual. There are likely naturalistic causes for it. You just don’t care to find out the truth. You’d prefer to pretend that your imaginary god was responsible.

You care how people treat their slaves?

Certainly.

Wow. I can’t believe you said that.
Your god does not condemn slavery. He dictated rules for how to treat slaves. That’s why I asked you that question.
Anyone with a shred of compassion and empathy, as well as a desire for equal rights for all would denounce slavery and anyone who supports it. You should be denouncing your horrible god who has not denounced slavery. Why do you not reject your god?

You whether or not a soldier who rapes a woman marries her?

Too many variables to say.

Your god endorses soldiers marrying the women they rape in war. If you care about the things your god cares about, then you *do* care about soldiers marrying the women they rape.
That shrivelled up slag in the corner is your morality as it continually withers each time you make stupid statements like this.

You’re already biased through indoctrination to believe that crap is true.

Except I was an atheist when I had the experience and wasn’t afterwards.

You would have me believe that you weren’t indoctrinated into religion from birth onward? You actually did not believe in *any* god, let alone one supreme being at some point in your life and then decided “Hey this makes sense, I’m going to believe in Yahweh”? How did you eliminate all the other possibilities for the existence of everything before you came to that deeply stupid, unsubstantiated, lacking in evidence conclusion? What process did you use to rule out all the other religions as being invalid? How did you prove that god created everything and there’s no other possible answer?

Cuz that’s totally not proof.

No, but it has a degree of evidential force, for me at any rate.

Wait, let me translate:
I have some idea of what a spiritual experience is. I went through an experience that I cannot describe and have chosen not to attempt to comprehend or understand in any meaningful way. I’ve decided it was a spiritual experience because I know what a spiritual experience is.

That’s something a child would do.

Why do you continue to believe in something for which no proof has ever existed?
Why does it make sense to believe in something that has no proof of its existence?
Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, dragons, demons, elves, witches, warlocks, sprites, banshees, sirens, ogres, trolls, satyrs, Hel, Valhalla, the Loch Ness Monster, ancient aliens, ghosts, telekinesis, or homeopathy? They’re all on equal footing with Yahweh. If you believe in one thing that has no proof of its existence, what stops you from believing in other things that lack proof?

??
You care about a metric fuckton of other things that ancient Israelites cared about. You believe in God for crying out loud. That was their creation, which has been translated and manipulated and added to and transformed and tweaked over 2 millenia by a variety of people.
If you care about the things that God cares about, you should be caring about wearing mixed fibres, because he cares about that.
You should also be pro abortion, since God, in his omnipotence and omniscience is responsible for every miscarriage ever. Not to mention he loved killing fetuses, infants and children during Noah’s flood.

Back when he was Chief Inquisitor, or Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith if you prefer

No, I’d prefer Inquisitor. Sadly that usage has fallen out of favour among our current crop of milquetoast clergy.

your favorite 85 year old celibate in a funny hat

Favourite? He’s done some good things but on the whole he strikes me as a dangerous liberal.

sent a letter to every bishop threatening them with excommunication if they turned over child raping clergy to the civil authorities. Instead, the bishops would send the child rapists to another parish or another bishopric or even another country so the child rapists had fresh meat to satisfy their urges. That letter has never been rescinded.

Interesting. Please could you quote the portion of this letter which threatens bishops with excommunication if they report clerical child-rapists to the secular authorities? If possible I’d like to see the original Latin text as well as the English translation. Thanks.

It does have bearing because the head of your church, the 85 year old celibate in the funny hat, has been acting in a completely unethical, immoral manner. So that shoots down your argument that the 85 year old celibate is the fount of ethics and morality. … If a magic sky pixie was really talking to the 85 year old celibate, then the guy in the funny hat might not be taking immoral, unethical positions. When the Church is taking an immoral position while pretending to be the moral authority on Earth, then its “truths” are in considerable doubt. Hypocrisy is neither moral nor ethical.

I’ll try to explain this in very simple terms. In Catholicism the Pope is not “the fount of ethics and morality” and doesn’t take dictation from God. Church teaching ≠ how a Pope acts. If the Pope commits an immoral act, he may very well be guilty of hypocrisy – precisely because his actions contradict the teaching of the institution he leads.

Do you understand?

Logic has always been what the majority of people say it is. If you disagree with the majority opinion, then nice men in white coats tend to take you away to a place where you can’t hurt yourself or others.

Wow. That’s some weapons-grade stupid you’ve got there.

As you’re aware, mathematics isn’t science. Or at least I hope you’re aware of it. Could it be you’re so god-soaked you don’t understand the difference between science and math? I suppose that’s possible. Or possibly you’re just too ignorant to know the difference.

Um, Rodney, that was the very distinction I was stressing while you & Rutee were trying to elide it.

I cannot understand why a supposedly rational, apparently intelligent person would turn his back on reality and replace it with myths and fantasies. No, I am not being facetious. I honestly do not understand why someone would give up rationality in favor of literally a fool’s paradise. And I particularly do not understand why, out of all the flavors of Jesusism there are, you would choose Catholicism, a cult which makes its hatred of humanity plain for everyone to see.

Neither part of this is even a tiny bit related to either the is/ought fallacy, or the is/ought problem.

I beg to differ.

I care so deeply about the opinions of stupid white men, believe you me.

How is the colour of Dawkins’ skin relevant? Are you a racist?

It’s not about majority vote. If you accept the premises behind it, equality follows logically from self-interest. Majority opinion has nothing to do with it, although the overwhelming majority of humans stand to gain from following this logic.

Your words: “I already gave you the logical root that can be followed for equality; it is a better life, on basically every metric anyone would actually use to measure for such things, for the overwhelming majority of people.”

Okay, first off, muslims didn’t start until *well after* Christians had that market locked down

That might have something to do with the fact that Islam didn’t start until *well after* Christianity.

and while there are at least a few antisemitic atheists, jews haven’t really had that many chances to suffer under what few atheist leaders have been out there.

I believe the post-WWWIII Soviet Union made life pretty difficult for many Jews.

Second, my point was just beyond your grasp, apparently, as it was a clause later; the tripartite [sic] god can not claim credit for this shit, as humans did it just fine without his/its help.

Which would be fine except I never said God could “claim credit for Jewish suffering”. I merely said the history of the Jewish people inclined me to believe in God.

I don’t recall saying I enjoyed their suffering.

You might want to wipe the smirk off your face as you run your premature victory laps, if you want to say that and have us believe it.

The Greeks weren’t really hot shit, even compared to the romans, who’s methods they eventually lost (Although to be fair, they could hardly practice it on the scale of the Romans), and they were outclassed within their own era by *direct neighbors*, who had the infrastructure and the governments in place to actually build beautiful things on a wider scale, as well as maintain and expand a far superior infrastructure.

The ‘innovations’ were made using advances that were, by necessity, taken from their neighbors, and there’s good evidence Christians didn’t make them first to begin with, but white people do sure love to toot their own horns.

The institutions were *far* behind their counterparts elsewhere; China had functioning education throughout much of its landscape before Rome divided, and Universities of actual use arose in the late medieval period; these same universities were less effective at non-religious education than madrasas throughout Iberia, the Italian islands, Egypt, and Arabia. For that matter, the Ottomans had a functioning civil service education bureau available well before the European powers. As to ‘hospitals’, you’re aware that while they were talking humours, their jewish and islamic neighbours were laying out the basic foundations of medical science, right? Not that the latter were exactly entirely correct, but they were several steps ahead of Europe.

For fucks’ sake, if you were even the littlest bit honest, you’d at least try to use the Byzantines, because they actually had some stuff going for them! But they were Orthodox, and you’re trying really hard to pretend this is actually a feather in the cap of Catholicism.

Europe spent a solid millenia behind its neighbors, and in an inferior position to most of the globe. *Africa* had more impressive empires for an extended period. In a few hundred years, when the West is getting its ass kicked by Asia (I suspect), is that going to start proving the dominance of Hinduism or whatever? Mind that Hindus and Buddhists had some pretty fucking amazing empires in huge parts oft he globe for centuries before then too.

I’m not actually sure whether or not I should say that europe’s time lagging was longer than a millenia or not. Modern history classes like to pretend the Romans were the unadulterated shit, but there were plenty of strong empires throughout the world, who’s influence reached as far or farther from their capitol.

Rutee, if you want to argue that, say, Islamic civilisation was in advance of medieval European civilisation in many respects, fine. If you want to argue that, say, ancient India or China had superior civilisations to that of ancient Rome, go ahead. If you want to believe that Periclean Athens was a shithole compared to whatever was going on in sub-Saharan Africa at the time, knock yourself out. It’s of no concern to me. The fact remains that Latin Christendom was a great civilisation, not some insignificant backwater. More importantly, your entire disquisition, whatever truth it may contain, is simply beside the point because I did not “claim that the west’s dominance, in toto, proved [the truth of Christianity], which is no less a correlation proves causation fallacy” I’ve already corrected you on this point but since English doesn’t appear to be your first language I’ll cut you some slack and spell it out: I believe the rise of modern (ie post-medieval) Europe to a position of industrial, imperial and cultural dominance and the subsequent transfer of that dominance to the USA was a disaster that contained the seeds of our current predicament.

(BTW –

white people do sure love to toot their own horns.

So you are a racist.

*Africa* had more impressive empires for an extended period

Hmmm. Those emphatic asterisks could be taken as racist: “Even Africa had …”)

There aren’t teams of white-coated boffins armed with calculators and abacuses busily amassing evidence to support “the 2+2=4 theory” or hoping to falsify it by finding an instance when they add up to make 5.

That’s because it’s insanely easy. You can gather the evidence the same way many children are taught how to count and do addition. It’s not my fault if a small child can outwit you.

Math ultimately also has to meet some application, where if it were wrong, it would show strains elsewhere in the real world.

Handwaving. Obviously mathematics conforms to empirical reality, but that doesn’t mean its axioms are scientifically provable. You yourself admit this: “I’m just also aware that Math *does* have external realities it has to match up to. It doesn’t prove itself via the scientific method, but empirical reality shapes it just the same, at least at a grand scale.”

I don’t suppose you see the irony of complaining about a lack of “gentle persuasion

I’m not holding myself up as the shining pillar of all that’s good and holy

Nether am I and neither was that cartoon I linked to.

and at any rate, someone else pointed out that it isn’t exactly ‘gentle persuasion’.

And you seconded it.

Okay, first off, the term you’re searching for is ‘Intellectual Honesty’, not ‘analytical rigour’.

But I don’t think you’re dishonest, just a bit dim.

Second, the problem is criticizing tone to the exclusion of content, but I don’t expect a bloviating twit to understand that.

It’s not always so easy to separate tone and content. The medium is the message and all that.

Religious Jews not infrequently use the sufferings etc of the Jewish people as support for rabbinical Judaism, so I can do the same for Catholicism, which after all claims to be in the direct line of descent from the religion of the ancient Israelites

…You mean they use their own hardship for their religion? Ya don’t say. Look asshole, I don’t think you understand why you don’t have dibs; because it ain’t yours, fool.

As a Catholic I believe the history of the Israelites is my history because the Church is Israel and has never been anything else. And while modern followers of rabbinical Judaism are no longer part of Israel they may well be so again. At any rate our destinies are intimately linked.

I’m not aware that the Pope has been shown to be personally complicit in the protection of predatory ephebophiles

Okay, first off, no, the majority of those preyed on were indeed children; stop trying to minimize this shit.

Ephebophiles do prey on children – adolescent children. If you have evidence that the majority of clerical sex abuse victims were prepubescent children, I’d be interested to see it.

Second, if you weren’t aware of your motherfucking pope’s actions, it’s because you’re a piece of ignorant shit who avoids everything that casts an aspersion on mother church.

Please could you quote the portion of this letter which threatens bishops with excommunication if they report clerical child-rapists to the secular authorities? If possible I’d like to see the original Latin text as well as the English translation. Thanks.

The millions of Christians who suffered and are suffering under communist regimes …

… China lets Christians run free, provided they don’t preach against the regime in China; which basically none do, because the churches set up by white people don’t really give a shit. … North Korea deifies Kim Jeung Il’s family, so that’s out, and I’m not familiar with anyone but white christians claiming there’s problems with them in any other communist country … Once again, you have to make shit up for the oppression Christians suffer under to be as bad.

Note I said “who suffered”. As for “and are suffering”, I’m given to understand Christians are having a pretty hard time of it in Vietnam and Laos.

Your racism is noted (again).

There’s plenty of stupid white dudes who claim to stand for secular humanism.

And again.

You are a piece of shit, on so many levels. Human fucking garbage.

Do you have any mode of expression other than blustering hysteria?

the gospels have contradicting opinions on the old vs. the new laws.

Do tell.

Yeah, the Jews are just like everybody else.

And you reconcile this with

I personally find the most compelling evidence to be the vicissitudes of the Jewish people

I’d prefer Inquisitor. Sadly that usage has fallen out of favour among our current crop of milquetoast clergy.

Because, of course, torturing people and setting them on fire is something they should be proud of. Because torture and incinerating living people are absolute moral goods, right?

Favourite? He’s done some good things but on the whole he strikes me as a dangerous liberal.

NB for noobs: When I asked Pilt which pope he would prefer to have ruling, out of all of the possible popes, he referred to Pius IX and Pius X.

He’s either a Sedevacantist, or sympathizes strongly with Sedevacantism.

Please could you quote the portion of this letter which threatens bishops with excommunication if they report clerical child-rapists to the secular authorities? If possible I’d like to see the original Latin text as well as the English translation.

Trans:Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably.

Obviously, if the tell secular authorities, they are violating the secret, and are therefore excommunicated.

Your words: “I already gave you the logical root that can be followed for equality; it is a better life, on basically every metric anyone would actually use to measure for such things, for the overwhelming majority of people.”

Reading comprehension, you do not posses it. Your lack of understanding between logical self interest and voting systems.

It’s not always so easy to separate tone and content. The medium is the message and all that

Bro-cookie, You have no bloody clue what you are even quoting. Citing McLuhan to make yourself look smart when the medium has been unstated throughout that whole little discussion of tone(which is still content, if you are going to play the media theory game) and content really does not help you. So, how is that pseudo-intellectualism going for you? Oh, right, badly considering how much you play pretend with history.

Great way to figure out a spiritual experience. If someone tells you they were transported to an alien vessel and experimented upon overnight and returned with an alien tracking device are you just going to take their word for it? If not, then you shouldn’t just assume that your “spiritual experience” was actually spiritual. There are likely naturalistic causes for it. You just don’t care to find out the truth. You’d prefer to pretend that your imaginary god was responsible. … let me translate: I have some idea of what a spiritual experience is. I went through an experience that I cannot describe and have chosen not to attempt to comprehend or understand in any meaningful way. I’ve decided it was a spiritual experience because I know what a spiritual experience is.

I don’t know where you get “cannot describe and have chosen not to attempt to comprehend or understand” from. I regard it as a spiritual experience because I can’t make sense of it any other way. For one thing, I experienced it firsthand so it’s not like uncritically accepting someone else’s account of alien abduction and more like being abducted oneself.

As for “naturalistic causes”, can I prove beyond all doubt that it wasn’t just a bunch of neurons misfiring? I suppose I can’t prove that particular negative. Among other things, I can’t prove beyond all doubt that you’re not a figment of my imagination or that I’m not a figment of yours.

You would have me believe that you weren’t indoctrinated into religion from birth onward?

Maybe I’m untypical in that respect. I don’t know. But my father’s participation in Jewish festivals was more a kind of cultural self-identification than indication of actual belief and he made no attempt to bring me up in that religion. My mother came from a Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) background which had left no trace apart from a lingering dislike for popery. I’ll grant you there was a certain degree of cultural osmosis from what was still nominally a “Christian country” – for example, we had Bible stories and Anglican hymns/prayers in school, which I quite enjoyed – but that’s about it. We weren’t churchgoers or Bible-readers. I suppose if you’d asked me when I was seven years old if I believed in God, I would have said yes, but the concept just wasn’t a part of everyday life and was consigned to the dustbin of infancy during my teenage years when, among other things, I read some Bertrand Russell.

You actually did not believe in *any* god, let alone one supreme being at some point in your life and then decided “Hey this makes sense, I’m going to believe in Yahweh”?

As I experienced it, the decision was made for me.

How did you eliminate all the other possibilities for the existence of everything before you came to that deeply stupid, unsubstantiated, lacking in evidence conclusion? … How did you prove that god created everything and there’s no other possible answer?

Because I came to see naturalistic explanations for the existence of everything as unsatisfactory.

What process did you use to rule out all the other religions as being invalid?

Well my mystical experience was emphatically monotheistic, which narrowed it down somewhat.

They are most certainly not on an equal footing with Almighty God, although you might be surprised at how many on that list I believe in. : )

Your god does not condemn slavery. He dictated rules for how to treat slaves. That’s why I asked you that question.
Anyone with a shred of compassion and empathy, as well as a desire for equal rights for all would denounce slavery and anyone who supports it. You should be denouncing your horrible god who has not denounced slavery. Why do you not reject your god?

Well I like to think I have at least a shred of compassion and empathy, but I should have thought it was obvious by now that I don’t worship at the altar of égalité. (Liberté and fraternité don’t really float my boat either.)

But slavery was never a monolithic institution and has taken various forms through the centuries – slavery in ancient Greece and Rome was a different thing to slavery in the CSA, which was different to the slavery practised by the Muslim Arabs. As I understand it, the Church’s traditional teaching is that slavery defined as life ownership of another’s labour is not intrinsically evil, whereas slavery defined as ownership of another’s body and soul – so that human beings could be bought and sold like chattel – is evil. (Hence the Church tended to condemn the slave trade if not slavery per se.)

I’m inclined to believe that some form of slavery is a pretty much inevitable consequence of the fallen human condition, in which case the main thing is to strive to make it as humane as possible – hence my answer to your question.

Your god endorses soldiers marrying the women they rape in war. If you care about the things your god cares about, then you *do* care about soldiers marrying the women they rape.

I’m assuming you’re referring to an incident in the OT. Specifically what passage did you have in mind?

Why should I care about that? I’m not an ancient Israelite.

You care about a metric fuckton of other things that ancient Israelites cared about. You believe in God for crying out loud. That was their creation, which has been translated and manipulated and added to and transformed and tweaked over 2 millenia by a variety of people.

Well I believe the opposite – I believe that ancient Israel was God’s creation.

If you care about the things that God cares about, you should be caring about wearing mixed fibres, because he cares about that.

No, he cared about that. A central plank of Christianity is that the various legal and ritual prescriptions of the Old Covenant were specifically intended for the Old Israel and are no longer binding on the New Israel (aka the Church) under the New Covenant.

You should also be pro abortion, since God, in his omnipotence and omniscience is responsible for every miscarriage ever. Not to mention he loved killing fetuses, infants and children during Noah’s flood.

When you think about it, He’s responsible for the death of every single man, woman and child who ever existed, exists and will exist. Now that’s what I call genocide. The difference is, we’re not God and don’t have His absolute jurisdiction over life and death.

That’s from the 1962 document Crimen sollicitationis, is it not? I asked about the alleged letter sent out by Cardinal Ratzinger. Are you saying Cardinal Ratzinger quoted that passage from Crimen sollicitationis when he allegedly “sent a letter to every bishop threatening them with excommunication if they turned over child raping clergy to the civil authorities”?

#86:

Why should I care about that? I’m not an ancient Israelite.

#94:

As a Catholic I believe the history of the Israelites is my history because the Church is Israel and has never been anything else.

Hee hee. Pilt never cares that he contradicts himself all the damn time.

A caterpillar is part of a butterfly’s history but that doesn’t mean a butterfly needs to concern itself with the specifics of building a chrysalis.

Clouds rolled in, and a voice like thunder said “I am God. ‘Ere, you, become a Catholic.”?

Actually there was no specifically Christian content to that particular experience at all.

No stomach for matzah? Do you have a gluten allergy or something? Or did a wine overdose make you nauseous?

The matzos were great, particularly with charoset (drool) or as matzo ball soup. Wine was a bit sweet but tolerable. It was more the readings that turned me off.

As for Roman Catholicism, my exposure was limited to a BBC television adaptation of Dracula.

There’s exactly the same amount of evidence for each of these as there is for Yahweh, i.e. zero point zip. That’s what that whole faith thing you theists are so proud of is all about. It’s admitting there’s absolutely no evidence for your gods but despite the total lack of evidence you feel you have to believe because otherwise your magic sky pixie has a snit and does imaginary things to you after you’re dead.

So you are a racist.
Nope; I can’t maintain or support racist structures that don’t exist.

How is the colour of Dawkins’ skin relevant? Are you a racist?

Because as a straight,white cis man of high class and with an able body and neurotypical mind, Dawkins has never experienced any form of structural prejudice against him. As such, he’s quite happy to reaffirm most structural prejudices. Any other stupid questions?

Your words

Unlike you, I know what I said. Majority vote doesn’t enter it.

That might have something to do with the fact that Islam didn’t start until *well after* Christianity.

Christians started oppressing Jews immediately after gaining power and didn’t stop until a century ago, muslims didn’t generally do so for at least a millenia. Pretending anyone is as complicit in it as Christians is a pretty bold, dick move.

Which would be fine except I never said God could “claim credit for Jewish suffering”. I merely said the history of the Jewish people inclined me to believe in God.

And connoted that it included the bad things; You’ve made it abundantly clear that Christians still don’t forgive Jews for not being Christians.

I believe the post-WWWIII Soviet Union made life pretty difficult for many Jews.

Post-WWII USSR was also orthodox again.

Hmmm. Those emphatic asterisks could be taken as racist: “Even Africa had …”)

Leveraging other people’s ignorance of history is likely not racism. If it is, I’ll avoid doing it in the future; you mistake me for some easily misled fool like yourself, rather than someone actually against racism, I see.

It’s of no concern to me. The fact remains that Latin Christendom was a great civilisation, not some insignificant backwater.

Um, that’s the opposite of the facts. People didn’t really want or care what they had to offer aside from gold, if they could deal with any of the opposing ones. Europe was irrelevant until their circumstances and some luck forced them into relevance. I mean yeah, they were awesomer than say, their scandinavian neighbors who eventually joined with them, but they were a backwater’s backwater at the time.

I’ve already corrected you on this point but since English doesn’t appear to be your first language

You think it’s not my first language, when you’ve mangled the meaning of quite a bit that you’ve said to try to sound smart. Is that so?

I believe the rise of modern (ie post-medieval) Europe to a position of industrial, imperial and cultural dominance and the subsequent transfer of that dominance to the USA was a disaster that contained the seeds of our current predicament.

And this is proof of the existence of God in what way?

Obviously mathematics conforms to empirical reality

And that is why math does not entitle you to say “Well, I can’t prove God scientifically, but can’t I still say it’s rational? It’s not like Math has to be scientific.” Math still is provable in empirical reality.

but that doesn’t mean its axioms are scientifically provable.

Well, some of the later ones might well not be, but “2 + 2 = 4” is.
At any rate, Math comes back to reality to prove itself, but God doesn’t.

But I don’t think you’re dishonest, just a bit dim.

Then you don’t understand either of the terms I just used, and you’re proving yourself to be the ‘dim’ one here.

It’s not always so easy to separate tone and content. The medium is the message and all that.

As a Catholic I believe the history of the Israelites is my history because the Church is Israel and has never been anything else. And while modern followers of rabbinical Judaism are no longer part of Israel they may well be so again. At any rate our destinies are intimately linked.

Then catholics believe in more lies than I give them credit for. Even if your myths are all true, it is still appropriation to claim jewish culture and jewish suffering. You aren’t jewish, end of discussion.

Please could you quote the portion of this letter which threatens bishops with excommunication if they report clerical child-rapists to the secular authorities? If possible I’d like to see the original Latin text as well as the English translation. Thanks.

Not that this wasn’t quoted and published, but I’d like to remind you that excommunication is hardly the only thing that the pope can do to followers.

Note I said “who suffered”

Because you didn’t mean modern china. You want me to believe you know something about the world at large that is directly opposite to the propaganda of your church?

Your racism is noted (again).

“Christian” is not used as code for immigrants in western society as “Muslim” often is, try again.

And again.

Nope; I can’t maintain or support racist structures that don’t exist.

Do you have any mode of expression other than blustering hysteria?

Do you have anything to offer but stupid statements?

Do tell.

CAme not to break the old laws, but fulfill them, off the top of my head.

Generally perhaps, but not exclusively.

You were pretty clearly using the suffering of the Jews, so yeah, don’t try weaselling out of it now. Vicissitudes was a great word choice, you just didn’t realize that we would perhaps take offensive to what you were trying to say and are trying to backpedal out of it. Poorly.

As I understand it, the Church’s traditional teaching is that slavery defined as life ownership of another’s labour is not intrinsically evil,

Then your church is more evil and depraved than I generally give it credit for, as are you for being chill with this.

And since you’re still pretending Ratsy didn’t do it…

Wikipedia summary:
As part of the implementation of the norms enacted and promulgated on April 30, 2001 by Pope John Paul II,[6] on May 18, 2001 Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop in the Catholic Church.[7][8] This letter reminded them of the strict penalties facing those who revealed confidential details concerning enquiries into allegations against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, which were reserved to the jurisdiction of the Congregation.

Having carefully considered opinions and having made the appropriate consultations, the work of the commission finally was completed. The fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined the commission’s work carefully and submitted to the supreme pontiff conclusions on the determination of more grave delicts and the manner of proceeding to declare or impose sanctions, with the exclusive competence in this of the apostolic tribunal of this congregation remaining firm. All these things, approved by the supreme pontiff himself, were confirmed and promulgated by the apostolic letter given motu proprio beginning with the words Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.

All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.

So yeah, he’s reaffirming excommunication. And he does in fact cite and reaffirm Crimen sollicitationis.

All of which you should have fucking known if you knew what Instructio Crimen Sollicitationis fucking was.

And you don’t need to maintain or support racist structures to be a racist.

How is the colour of Dawkins’ skin relevant?

Because as a straight,white cis man of high class and with an able body and neurotypical mind, Dawkins has never experienced any form of structural prejudice against him. As such, he’s quite happy to reaffirm most structural prejudices.

What a lot of cock. Just because one is shielded or benefits from ‘structural prejudice’, it doesn’t follow that one is therefore happy to reaffirm that prejudice. Recipients of unasked-for privileged are perfectly capable of repudiating that privilege – many social reformers were from privileged backgrounds.

In any case, what has all of this got to do with anything? We weren’t discussing the Dawk’s views on prejudice, ‘structural’ or otherwise.

Unlike you, I know what I said. Majority vote doesn’t enter it.

You said egalitarianism naturally flowed from the desire for a better life, which you in turn defined as what most people would consider to be a better life.

Christians started oppressing Jews immediately after gaining power and didn’t stop until a century ago, muslims didn’t generally do so for at least a millenia.

Muslims didn’t have to wait a millennium before persecuting Jews. And while medieval Christians’ treatment of Jews might have been harsh, there are two sides to every story.

I merely said the history of the Jewish people inclined me to believe in God.

And connoted that it included the bad things … You’re still smirking over their suffering

Sure the history of the Jewish people includes “the bad things”. Duh. And yes, Christians believe that some (not all) of those misfortunes were/are divine chastisements (as do some Jews). That doesn’t mean we’re gloating or “smirking” over it. ”Boast not against the branches … be not highminded, but fear … For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee.”

Post-WWII USSR was also orthodox again

Right. Comrade Stalin and his myrmidons were renowned for their devout Orthodox faith.

Latin Christendom was a great civilisation, not some insignificant backwater.

I believe the rise of modern (ie post-medieval) Europe to a position of industrial, imperial and cultural dominance and the subsequent transfer of that dominance to the USA was a disaster that contained the seeds of our current predicament.

And this is proof of the existence of God in what way?

Evidence, not proof. The transition to modernity involved a general apostasy from Christianity. This apostasy was foretold by Scripture and numerous popes, saints and seers delineated the specific trajectory society would henceforth take. This is manifesting itself with increasing rapidity and intensity, as can be seen anyone with eyes.

No. You can put one cat next to another and see you now have two cats but that isn’t scientific proof that 2+2=4. It’s an instance of an axiomatic (effectively tautological) truth. Sure, we wouldn’t be able to formulate such truths without such physical instantiations, but counting things is not a process of acquiring evidence through experimentation to form a provisional, falsifiable hypothesis.

It’s not always so easy to separate tone and content. The medium is the message and all that.

When expressions enter popular usage, one has a certain freedom to appropriate them as one wishes. My equivalence of tone (or form if you prefer) with medium and content with message seems reasonable to me regardless of the precise meaning McLuhan assigns to these terms in his work.

You don’t really know what McLuhan was talking about, do you?

Do you?

”Current sociology and social engineering, so far from being a source of hope or renewal of impulse, must themselves be studied as morbid symptoms. … Mechanical efforts to tinker the good society into existence have prevailed.”

”Electric information environments, being utterly ethereal, foster the illusion of the world as spiritual substance. It is now a reasonable facsimile of the Mystical Body, a blatant manifestation of the Anti-Christ. After all, the Prince of this World is a very great electric engineer …”

Even if your myths are all true, it is still appropriation to claim jewish culture and jewish suffering.

If our ‘myths’ are all true then what you call ‘appropriation’ is in fact our perfectly legitimate inheritance.
(The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof”

You aren’t jewish, end of discussion.

Herr Hitler would have disagreed, so go to hell.

Your racism is noted (again).

“Christian” is not used as code for immigrants in western society as “Muslim” often is

You referred gratuitously to “white Christians”, suggesting you’re either an anti-white racist or a self-hating white.

CAme not to break the old laws, but fulfill them, off the top of my head.

And because He fulfilled them, we no longer live under them.

Vicissitudes was a great word choice, you just didn’t realize that we would perhaps take offensive to what you were trying to say and are trying to backpedal out of it.

And why would a nasty mean reactionary old troll like myself give two hoots if I offend some liberal on the internet? I’d be more likely to backpedal if I said something that didn’t offend you.

So yeah, he’s reaffirming excommunication. And he does in fact cite and reaffirm Crimen sollicitationis.
All of which you should have fucking known if you knew what Instructio Crimen Sollicitationis fucking was.